Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-23-00020-CV

Maria V. BARBOSA,

Appellant

v.

Cristina GALAN,

Appellee

From the 218th Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16-10-0898-CVA

Honorable John D. Gabriel Jr., Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Sitting: Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 6, 2024

AFFIRMED

This appeal concerns a real property dispute between appellant Maria Barbosa and appellee 

Cristina Galan. In three issues, Barbosa challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for (1) adverse 

possession, applicable under the three-, five-, and ten-year limitations statutes; (2) payment of 

taxes under the five-year limitations statute; and (3) color of title under the three-year limitations 

statute. We affirm.
04-23-00020-CV

- 2 -

BACKGROUND

The origins of this title dispute rest in a family quarrel culminating in Barbosa suing to 

evict her niece, Galan, and Galan asserting ownership through adverse possession. Crispin and 

Sista Vejara originally owned approximately 26.75 acres 

in Atascosa County, Texas.1 Crispin and Sista had five 

children. On March 16, 1998, Crispin and Sista conveyed 

1.098 acres to their son, Louis Vejara (yellow—Plat 2). 

On May 4, 1998, Crispin and Sista conveyed the 

remainder of the property to three of their children—Julia 

Martinez, Celzo Vejara, and Barbosa. On April 27, 2001, 

Julia, Celzo, and Barbosa partitioned the property such 

that (1) Barbosa owned the east 8.6 acres north of F.M. 

Highway 3175 (red); (2) Julia owned the west 8.6 acres 

north of the highway (blue); and (3) Celzo owned 3.65 

acres south of the highway (green).

Crispin and Sista did not convey property by deed 

to their fifth child, Antonia Duran, although she lived on 

a portion of the property at the time of the conveyances. Antonia is Galan’s mother. After Crispin 

and Sista died, in 2005, Barbosa sought to evict Antonia and Galan, both of whom had lived on 

the property for many years. In response to the eviction proceeding, Antonia filed suit in April 

2005 to set aside the conveyances to her siblings, alleging her parents lacked requisite mental 

capacity to execute the deeds and for adverse possession. The parties to the 2005 suit eventually 

1 For illustration purposes, we highlight identified tracts in colors stated in the opinion on admitted plats.
04-23-00020-CV

- 3 -

participated in a mediation that resulted in a December 19, 2005 settlement agreement. Among 

other terms, the settlement agreement stated: “[Antonia] to receive judgment satisfying title of 

[Antonia’s] present use of real property including improvements as generally defined (roughly) as 

7537 FM 3175, Somerset, Texas, & consisting of the area defined as attached Exhibit A [a hand 

drawing showing agreed boundaries].” The settlement agreement required Antonia to establish 

new access to the property from the highway and not use the dirt road providing existing access 

and to acquire a new survey at Antonia’s cost and expense. Although Antonia constructed a new 

entry road and had the property surveyed, a judgment was not entered in her favor, and Barbosa 

did not execute a deed conveying property to Antonia. Notwithstanding the executed settlement 

agreement, on February 13, 2008, the lawsuit 

was dismissed for want of prosecution.

Antonia and Galan continued to live 

in their homes, and on February 14, 2008, 

Julia conveyed a 0.5-acre tract of land (the 

“Galan Tract”) to Antonia. That same day, 

Antonia conveyed the Galan Tract (purple) to 

her daughter, Galan.

On May 5, 2016, a deed was filed in 

the real property records purportedly granting

a 2.16-acre tract to Antonia. Only Julia

executed the deed, although the 2.16-acre 

tract was situated on both Julia and Barbosa’s 

tracts.
04-23-00020-CV

- 4 -

On May 10, 2016, Barbosa again filed to evict Galan from the Galan Tract; the case was 

dismissed after Galan raised title by limitations. In the trial court below, Galan thereafter asserted 

various causes of action, including to establish title to the Galan Tract by limitations (i.e., adverse 

possession). The trial court held a two-day bench trial, and on September 12, 2022, the trial court 

entered a final judgment in favor of Galan. This appeal follows.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

As the party seeking relief, Galan bore the burden to prove each element of her cause of 

action by a preponderance of the evidence. See Saba Zi Exploration, L.P. v. Vaughn, 448 S.W.3d 

123, 129 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.) (“A party who asserts an affirmative 

claim for relief generally has the burden of persuading the factfinder as to each element of his 

cause of action.”).

We only sustain a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence in four circumstances:

(1) where there is a complete absence of evidence of a vital fact; (2) where the court is barred by 

rules of law or of evidence from giving weight to the only evidence offered to prove a vital fact; 

(3) where the evidence offered to prove a vital fact is no more than a mere scintilla; or (4) where 

the evidence establishes conclusively the opposite of the vital fact. Dallas Nat’l Ins. Co. v. De La 

Cruz, 470 S.W.3d 56, 57 (Tex. 2015) (citing City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 812 (Tex. 

2005)). We credit evidence that supports the judgment if a reasonable factfinder could have done 

so and disregard contrary evidence unless a reasonable factfinder could not have done so. Id.

ADVERSE POSSESSION

In three issues, appellant asserts no evidence supports the trial court’s judgment.

Applicable Law

Under Texas law, adverse possession requires “an actual and visible appropriation of real 

property, commenced and continued under a claim of right that is inconsistent with and is hostile 
04-23-00020-CV

- 5 -

to the claim of another person.” BP Am. Prod. Co. v. Marshall, 342 S.W.3d 59, 69 (Tex. 2011)

(quoting TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 16.021(1)). The adverse possession statutes are statutes 

of limitations intended to settle land titles. Nat. Gas Pipeline Co. of Am. v. Pool, 124 S.W.3d 188, 

198–99 (Tex. 2003). As applicable here, Texas statutes authorize adverse possession under three-

, five-, and ten-year limitations periods. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §§ 16.024–.026.

To prevail on a claim of adverse possession, a claimant must establish (1) the actual and 

visible possession of the disputed property; (2) that is adverse and hostile to the claim of the owner 

of record title; (3) that is open and notorious; (4) that is peaceable; (5) that is exclusive; and (6) that 

involves continuous cultivation, use, or enjoyment throughout the statutory period. NAC Tex Hotel 

Co., Inc. v. Greak, 481 S.W.3d 327, 331–32 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2015, no pet.). A party seeking to 

establish title to land by virtue of the statute of limitations has the burden of proving every fact 

essential to that claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Rhodes v. Cahill, 802 S.W.2d 643, 645 

(Tex.1990) (op. on reh’g).

To prevail under the five-year limitations period, a person “must bring suit not later than 

five years after the day the cause of action accrues to recover real property held in peaceable and 

adverse possession by another who: (1) cultivates, uses, or enjoys the property; (2) pays applicable 

taxes on the property; and (3) claims the property under a duly registered deed.” TEX. CIV. PRAC.

& REM. CODE § 16.025(a). At issue in this appeal related to the five-year limitations period is the 

requirement to pay applicable taxes on the property.

To prevail under the three-year limitations period, a person “must bring suit to recover real 

property held by another in peaceable and adverse possession under title or color of title not later 

than three years after the day the cause of action accrues.” TEX.CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE § 16.024. 

At issue in this appeal related to the three-year limitations period is the “color of title” requirement.
04-23-00020-CV

- 6 -

Analysis

Adverse Possession

In her first issue, Barbosa asserts there is no evidence supporting Galan’s claim that she 

adversely possessed the Galan Tract. Specifically, Barbosa asserts Galan’s entry on the Galan 

Tract was made with consent and Galan’s offer to purchase the property from Barbosa is 

inconsistent with a claim hostile to Barbosa’s ownership. Although the briefing is unclear, we 

broadly construe Barbosa as challenging the sufficiency of the evidence pertinent to the 

requirements of an exclusive claim by Galan that is adverse and hostile to Barbosa.2 TEX. CIV.

PRAC. & REM. CODE § 16.021(1); see also Greak, 481 S.W.3d at 331–32.

At trial, Galan testified she had lived on the Galan Tract for twenty-six years. Barbosa 

testified she knew Galan was living on the property since 1996 or 1997. Galan admitted, without 

objection, photographs of her home on the Galan Tract. Barbosa testified that Galan’s home was 

visible from her home to the north; agreed the structures on Galan’s property were “open and 

obvious”; and admitted Galan’s use was uninterrupted. In 2008, Galan purchased a new trailer 

home to move on the Galan Tract; at that time, an older trailer home that Galan had lived in was 

removed. Also in 2008, Galan purchased a water meter and installed a septic system. In 2011, 

Galan built a four-car garage on the property. Galan admitted into evidence an April 4, 2018 letter 

from CPS Energy verifying that Galan has maintained electric services at the address from May

24, 1996 through the date of the verification letter. A certified copy of the deed (filed February 15, 

2008) purporting to convey the Galan Tract to Galan was likewise admitted without objection.

2 Barbosa also asserts the ten-year statute is inapplicable because ten years did not pass between Galan’s 2008 entry 

on the property and Barbosa’s 2016 forcible detainer action. But because we determine there is sufficient evidence 

under the five-year statute, we need not address this argument applicable only to the ten-year statute.
04-23-00020-CV

- 7 -

With respect to Galan’s offer to purchase the Galan Tract, Galan testified to a conversation 

with Barbosa regarding the Galan Tract. According to Galan, she offered to buy the property to 

purchase peace and avoid ongoing family disputes:

Q. Did you ever attempt to purchase that .5 acres [the Galan 

Tract]?

Galan. Yes, I did.

Q. Was that because she was disputing ownership to it, or when 

did that happen?

Galan. I don’t know the year, but I did want to purchase the 

property. I don’t -- I don’t remember the year, but I did want 

to purchase the property from her, because I just wanted to 

be at -- you know, just be okay with everybody. With 

everything that was going on, I just wanted to purchase it 

and just go on with my life, so I did ask her if I -- if she could 

sell me the property.

Q. This was not part of the settlement negotiation, was it?

Galan. No.

Q. Okay. What did she tell you?

Galan. She said no.

Although it is unclear when this conversation occurred, Barbosa’s counsel took the position 

at trial that these discussions were part of the 2005 lawsuit, and Barbosa swore she never had any

communication with Galan regarding the sale of the Galan Tract. The trial court could have 

believed Galan’s offer, if any, was made long before her claim under the five-year statute began 

to accrue in 2008. Because a reasonable factfinder could have disregarded this evidence as 

irrelevant to Galan’s five-year limitations claim, we must disregard it as well. See De La Cruz, 470 

S.W.3d at 57.

The trial court heard extensive testimony regarding the breakdown in familial relations 

between Barbosa, on the one hand, and Antonia and Galan, on the other hand. Given a prolonged 
04-23-00020-CV

- 8 -

family dispute as early as 2005, the trial court could have inferred Galan’s claim was adverse to, 

hostile to, and exclusive of Barbosa’s claim. The trial court could have further inferred from the

2005 settlement agreement an understanding by the parties going forward that Galan’s claim to 

the Galan Tract was hostile to and exclusive of Barbosa’s claim.

After reviewing the evidence and applying the appropriate standard of review, we conclude 

the record contains sufficient evidence to establish each element of adverse possession at least as 

early as 2008. We accordingly overrule Barbosa’s first issue.

Payment of Taxes

In her second issue, Barbosa asserts there is no evidence Galan paid property taxes on the 

Galan Tract. Other than the requirements to prove adverse possession that we have already 

discussed, on appeal, Barbosa only challenges the payment of taxes under the five-year statute.

Barbosa asserts there is no evidence Galan paid taxes on the Galan Tract because, due to 

an error by the Atascosa Central Appraisal District (“CAD”), CAD erroneously deducted the Galan 

Tract from Julia’s property rather than Barbosa’s property. Notably, the Galan Tract is wholly 

located within Barbosa’s 8.6-acre tract.

At trial, Sandy Goodrum testified CAD assessed Galan taxes on the Galan Tract from 2009 

through 2021. That assessment was based on CAD’s receipt of the February 2008 deeds conveying 

the Galan Tract (1) from Julia to Antonia, and (2) from Antonia to Galan. Goodrum explained that 

in 2008, CAD did not have mapping software to determine from which land the Galan Tract should 

be removed, and CAD assumed that because Julia was grantor, the Galan Tract was located within

Julia’s property. In 2020, CAD noticed the Galan Tract should have been carved out of Barbosa’s

property rather than Julia’s property and, in 2021, CAD corrected their records. The effect of 

CAD’s error is: (1) CAD undertaxed Julia as though the Galan Tract was located on it (when it 

was not); (2) CAD overtaxed Barbosa as though the Galan Tract were not located on it (when it 
04-23-00020-CV

- 9 -

was); and (3) CAD taxed Galan on the Galan Tract. As confirmed by CAD records admitted at 

trial, for twelve years, CAD assessed Galan taxes on the Galan Tract as her homestead.

In her brief, Barbosa asserts she was not given notice of Galan’s claim because she was 

assessed taxes for the full 8.6 acres over this twelve-year period. However, the five-year limitations 

statute does not require Barbosa be given notice of Galan’s payment of taxes; nor does the statute 

provide a defense for overpayment of taxes. Textually, the statute requires only that Galan “pay[] 

applicable taxes on the property.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 16.025(a)(2). The evidence at 

trial conclusively established Galan was assessed and paid taxes on the Galan Tract from 2009 

through 2021. We accordingly overrule Barbosa’s second issue.

Color of Title

In her third issue, Barbosa asserts there is insufficient evidence to establish color of title. 

Proof of “color of title” is only required under the three-year statute. Given our disposition of the 

first two issues—applicable to adverse possession under the five-year statute—we need not reach 

Barbosa’s third issue. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1.

CONCLUSION

Having found sufficient evidence of each challenged element under the five-year title by 

limitations statute, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice